The difference is that string theory is perfectly respectable in the academy, and if a physics teacher taught it in high school, the ACLU wouldn’t file suit.

There’s an awful lot about cosmology and origin of life (which is, strictly speaking, not part of evolutionary theory) that is hard to distinguish from Intelligent Design with respect to experimental verification. Unlike the True Believers of Evolution, I’m prepared to allow non-testable claims to be discussed in public schools. It strengthens the student’s understanding of science to see how these questions of “What constitutes science?” get handled.

I’m not speaking on behalf of your generation. But I know more than a few Republicans in their 20s. A lot of them aren’t thrilled about homosexuality.

“You trying to scare everyone with those pictures is the equivalent of me trying to say all Christians are dangerous psychopaths because a few of them shot up some abortion clinics.”

Tell me: does the fact that the police were ordered not to arrest anyone for public indecency tell you anything? Imagine if police were ordered not to arrest abortion clinic bombers. Would that tell you something about what the dominant values were of the community?

As for your photos, that’s absolutely absurd. You trying to scare everyone with those pictures is the equivalent of me trying to say all Christians are dangerous psychopaths because a few of them shot up some abortion clinics. It’s extremely hypocritical of you to attempt to paint an entire subsection of humanity with a broad brush based on the actions of an extremist few. I’m pretty sure you’d be unhappy with someone trying to get Christianity criminalized because of the extreme actions of a few.

Warning: not only is this not worksafe–it wouldn’t be worksafe at Hustler magazine. I’m not sure it would be worksafe in hell. I thought that after living in the Bay Area that there was nothing left that could shock or disgust me. I was wrong.

As for the experience issue, although I don’t insist on the comparison, I suspect Palin might well take a page from Margaret Thatcher’s book. When Thatcher was first elected Prime Minister, her foreign policy experience was deficient also. She solved that by setting up a committee of people who she respected to advise her and by study. I’d say that worked out pretty well for her. And it’s to be expected Palin will have the advantage of serving under McCain, who is very good on foreign policy, for some time.

BTW, some experiments in the Galapagos have strongly supported the theory of evolution. I refer to some experiments where the beaks of a species of bird not only adapted to the food source on a particular island, but adapted again when the food sources changed measured over a period of years. (Sorry, I don’t have a source– going by memory here)

Of course, this could also be attributed to God changing his design…

As for inexperience, that dog won’t hunt – she has more executive experience than either of the Wonder Twins, and will be apprenticing to a man with a fair amount of experience…

For the more machiavellian among y’all – the chance of her running top-ticket in 2012 (if McCain is a 1-term president for whatever reason) massively increases Hillary’s chances to be the Dem candidate in 2012; and consequently increases her desire to drag the Wonder Twins down…

Just saying that because we occasionally discover new information that overrides old information that evolution is wrong is like saying that subatomic particles are just a theory because we’re discovering new information about them all the time.

My wife grew up in an anti-evolution household, raised by a pastor with a PhD, and went to all Christian schools. She was taught a lot of things about evolution that she came to later discover were fabrications, either willful ignorance at best or outright lies at worst. Having educated herself on the subject from the other perspective by reading many books on evolutionary theory, she was blown away by how much she was told that was just plain wrong.

Bad typist Bad.

So a lot of evolution theory seems to be wrong. After all that is why it is a theory that has to constantly tested against new evidence.

Evolution does not invalidate intelligence design and there is some evidence. However I would like it discussed in philosophy or religion class.

Be Careful about thinking science is always fact. We constantly test assumption and then have to re evaluate and redo a theory. A lot of believes science has been changed . Science is meant to be skeptical, test the evidence .

All you have to do is look at the fossil record to see that species change over time. You can change them significantly in a short period of time just through selective breeding. How different is, say, a Wolf from a Pomeranian, even though the DNA is compatible enough that they can still breed with each other. But you have cases in nature, especially when species have been separated by distance, where each species evolves enough from a common ancestor that reproduction is no longer possible, and you have different species.

now where’s that bag of popcorn…

On the other hand, I have no way of proving or disproving that the evolutionary process is driven by some hidden intelligence. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But I can never prove or disprove it either way, and it’s not useful for making scientific predictions, so it is philosophy and religion, not science.

Fixed that for you Sebastian

If you disagree, please cite repeatable experiment proving species change (not variations with a species such dog hair patterns, pea textures, butterfly wing colors, etc.). Examples cannot be things like bird beaks whose existance is said to be due to evolution but cannot be scientifically demonstrated.

LOL at that.

I’m not opposed to teaching ID in, say, philosophy or religion class. Not in biology class, because it’s not science.

It is a science (ie, it’s based on physical analysis rather than religious or mental, and proposes data rather than mandates), just one with relatively little physical analysis on its side and a pretty significant amount against it.

I wouldn’t call it anti-science, but I wouldn’t consider it a particularly good or useful policy. Hell, even if I were religious and could teach specific religions in schools, I’d rather they not — we’re talking a facility that tends tor release people that attribute “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” to the Constitution of the United States, I don’t want kids coming out of High School thinking that Moses died on the burning bush for their sins — but this seems counterproductive.

Actually scientists have been looking at the theory of creationism in conjunction with evolution. Scientific American and another journal to which the name alludes me have both had articles as of late regarding dark matter and the big bang theory.

But I understand what you mean about creationism not being taught in Science classes. But just wanted to let you know that it is out there in the science community at this point.

At 63, only my sisters call me “younger.”

Palin: mostly seems a good choice, with executive branch experience. Flaws, of course, but actively anti-corruption, pro-energy (ie, since it is going to take a decade to develop practical alternative what do we do in the meantime – drill/pump and perhaps nukes), seems pro-2nd A…

And yeah, foreign policy. OK, some other states border on Canada or Mexico, but Russia (well, as closely as Chicago IL to Canada)?